Dumb and Dumber...An Ensworth Perspective

[Bighurt]

I am not sure that adopting these new rules which supersede NFHS rules is the best idea.  Knee jerk reactions often turn out badly.

[tradertwo]

Rules to handle the situation were already in place, just not applied. Game does not end on a defensive penalty under any circumstance...everything which followed was included in the rulebook, and appropriate for the situation   IF   the official deemed it necessary. The ejection should have been upheld in the appeal process because it was the judgment of the official that the contact warranted it, not "misapplication of a rule". The only breech of the rules came when the ref signaled the game to be over, when the rulebook states that it was not. Argue against the logic if you like, but it's there in black and white.

Edited December 20, 2013 by tradertwo

[airstrip1]

The appeal would have never been granted let alone heard had it not been an affluent school.  TSSAA was indimidated.

[Blaze99]

Rules to handle the situation were already in place, just not applied. Game does not end on a defensive penalty under any circumstance...everything which followed was included in the rulebook, and appropriate for the situation IF the official deemed it necessary. The ejection should have been upheld in the appeal process because it was the judgment of the official that the contact warranted it, not "misapplication of a rule". The only breech of the rules came when the ref signaled the game to be over, when the rulebook states that it was not. Argue against the logic if you like, but it's there in black and white.

The game can end on a defensive penalty....... if the offense declines the penalty. There's your only circumstance.

Edited December 21, 2013 by Blaze99

[tradertwo]

That's not a circumstance, it is the decision of the coach and has to be made after the play is over...thus the game ends with the decision, not when the clock expires. Nitpick all you like, the ejection should not have been overturned as the actions of the coach were still dominion of TSSAA and its representatives (officials) until the ball was snapped again and the following play was over...or if it suits you better, after the penalty was announced and declined.

[Tornadoes78]

That's not a circumstance, it is the decision of the coach and has to be made after the play is over...thus the game ends with the decision, not when the clock expires. Nitpick all you like, the ejection should not have been overturned as the actions of the coach were still dominion of TSSAA and its representatives (officials) until the ball was snapped again and the following play was over...or if it suits you better, after the penalty was announced and declined.

I agree with you that the game by rule could not end on the defensive team penalty, unless as you described in the example the offensive team coach declined the penalty.  Given the facts as we know them how do you sort this out?  

Penalty on last play - whatever you want to call it happens on the sidelines. 

White hat goes to mid field - signals the game is over.

White hat approaches offensive team coach and ejects him approximately two minutes later during the post game handshakes.

Given all of this, to me, the TSSAA made the decision they had to make following their rules. Subsequent to this, the TSSAA changes the rules to address future games since they did not like the decision they had to make.   

[tradertwo]

I agree in principal with your analogy of the situation, however if "misapplication of a rule" allows the ejection to be overturned why then did the misapplication of the rule requiring the continuation of the game dissipate like so much vapor? Bowers behavior was not affected by the game status, and the official judgment on the field was that it warranted his ejection. I guarantee you that a small rural public school would not have even been granted an appeal, much less the reversal of an officials in game decision and subsequent rule changes, when in fact every action involved in the situation was already governed by an existing rule. Smoke and mirrors to avoid potential legal action from the high and mighty, all the while projecting the image of correcting a "glitch" in the rules that forced them to align themselves with (and against their own official) Bowers and Ensworth. Wouldn't surprise me if Childress didn't issue an apology for the ineptitude of the official, and the damage to Bowers' impeccable public image.

Edited December 23, 2013 by tradertwo

[FlyBy]

 Wouldn't surprise me if Childress didn't issue an apology for the ineptitude of the official, and the damage to Bowers' impeccable public image.

If one of my employees acted in a similar manner as the white hat did, I'd issue an apology.

[NonUTFan]

If one of my employees acted in a similar manner as the white hat did, I'd issue an apology.

That is the difference between a quality person and Childress.  Not a chance, because that would solidify the admission of a mistake.